Is circumcision a way to imitate prophets? Moses, Mohamed and other more ancient patriarchs such as the Sumerian god Anunnaki are rumoured to have been born without foreskin or aposthic. This gives reasons for some people to assume that circumcision aims at imitating the prophets. Thus, ancients must have taken the lack of foreskin for a divine sign and have begun to cut their foreskins in order to imitate the holy men.
Of course, circumcision could be an imitation because imitating is a ubiquitous human aptitude. But this seems nearly impossible because the ancient prophets are nowhere to be seen. Believers do not imitate them but merely the religious concept of them. In other words, even though devotees may appear to imitate seers they actually copy and abide by imaginary religious requirements. In confirmation, the majority of the believers have never heard of the aposthic condition of their apostles.
Mutation or mutilation?
The intimate connection of aposthia with religion makes it the most valuable mutation of all times. Even modern biology cannot refute that aposthia is a result of divine intervention because it considers that mutations occur by chance and without any known mundane cause. And this is no wonder at all because like chemistry during 20th century biology was forced to exist in the irrational frame of the probabilistic physics.
Without denying the aposthia of prophets one can rightfully doubt it. The first believers who could be the only witnesses to the aposthic conditions of the prophets were new to circumcision and lacked any expertise in distinguishing neonatal circumcision from aposthia. Or a mutation from a mutilation. The incompetence of the eyewitnesses renders the testimonies about patriarchs’ aposthia completely unreliable. There is a strong possibility that believers copy a man-made genital modification instead of God’s providence.
But how could the aposthic apostles themselves be at all sure that they were circumcised as infants? Obviously, they must have had absolute trust in their parents. Their aposthic state is a question of blind trust in the words of their relatives. Considering that circumcision was an obligatory attribute of priests in ancient Egypt and perhaps in older civilizations aposthic state of patriarchs becomes quite a controversial topic. The assumption that circumcision is merely an imitation seems to be pure speculation, an attempt to justify circumcision focusing on its good intentions.
A number of questions rightfully pops up. What is the sense of miming the genital state of prophets? Was aposthia a fashion among prophets? Was it a guaranty of holiness or a mark of successfulness? Isn’t replication of prophets a blasphemy? Why are believers so fascinated with the reproductive organs of their spiritual leaders? Why do they show interest in the appearance of the holy men’s penises at all? Do believers find genital anomalies impressive? Do they suffer a genital fixation? Are Abrahamic religions phallocentric? Or they are phallophobic?
And how was the genital state of the seers revealed in the first place? Was it spotted in the bath? Or did it happen during an educative sermon?
Of course, aposthia is unfair to the vast majority of men who must amputate their sensitive tissue in order to attest their faithfulness but God works in mysterious ways. Undoubtedly, if circumcision copies renowned men from the hoary antiquity it must be hopelessly outdated. However, everything related to prophets is reckoned a purely religious affair. Its discussion is considered unethical in democratic societies and condemned in religious ones. It is a risky business also because prophets are too close to the Penalizing Father.
- Aposthia is a very rare congenital condition in humans, in which the foreskin of the penis is missing. → Back